CORTEX+SYNAPSE

Target Validation

Validate biological targets by integrating published evidence with your own experimental data. Synapse builds an evidence-scored dossier from literature and databases while Cortex runs rigorous multi-method analysis on your omics data. The platform then overlays the two, showing where your findings converge with the broader evidence base, where they contradict it, and where translational gaps remain.

What You Get

Deliverables

Evidence convergence map

A side-by-side view showing where your experimental findings align with published literature. Each convergence point links your Cortex differential expression or pathway result to a Synapse evidence claim, with the source papers, databases, and confidence scores that support it. Convergent signals between independent data sources are the strongest basis for target advancement decisions.

Synapse:Inflammation 0.90TNFα/NF-κB NES 2.27CONVERGENT
Synapse:Obesity 0.81IL2/STAT5 NES 1.89CONVERGENT
Synapse:AP2M1 0.42conflicting evidenceCONFLICT

Contradiction report

Not all evidence agrees. The contradiction report surfaces findings where your results conflict with published literature or where the literature itself is divided. Each conflict is contextualized by species, model system, and disease stage, so you can assess whether the disagreement is meaningful or explained by experimental differences. For GLP1R, the platform identified conflicting evidence for AP2M1 (concordance 0.42) and coronary artery disease (concordance 0.33).

AP2M1Coronary Artery Disease100%50%0%50%100%42%33%58%67%SupportingContradicting

Translational gap analysis

A staged view of evidence across the translational chain: basic research, preclinical, and clinical. The analysis highlights where evidence is strong, where it thins out, and where gaps could derail a program. For GLP1R, evidence coverage is complete across all three stages, a strong signal for target maturity. For earlier-stage targets, this analysis identifies exactly where additional experiments are needed.

ClinicalPreclinicalBasic Research317404580
DECISION ENABLED

Advance or deprioritize targets based on convergent evidence from your data and the full published record. Targets with strong convergence across independent data sources and complete translational chains are the strongest advancement candidates.

Sample Output

GLP1R target validation: evidence integration

GLP1R: Indication Scores (Top 10)1,301 evidence items
Metabolic SyndromeWeight LossHeart FailureType 2 DiabetesObesityCoronary Artery DiseasePrediabetesInflammationSocial IsolationHypertension00.20.40.60.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.900.901.001.00
Evidence Convergence: Synapse × Cortex3 convergent findings
Synapse SignalCortex FindingCell ContextVerdict
Inflammation (0.90)TNFα/NF-κB NES 2.27IL-33 mast cellsConvergent
Obesity (0.81)IL2/STAT5 NES 1.89IL-4 eosinophilsConvergent
Type 2 Diabetes (0.81)Insulin secretion 0.70GLP1R pathwayConvergent
Contradiction Report2 conflicts detected
EntityConcordanceType
AP2M10.42Molecular interaction
Coronary Artery Disease0.33Disease association
Translational Evidence Chaincomplete coverage
Evidence items0100200300400500600Basic ResearchPreclinicalClinical580404317

CROSS-TARGET COMPARISON: EGFR (ONCOLOGY)

Dual-Target Evidence Profile: GLP1R vs EGFR2 targets compared
PapersEvidenceTrialsDrugsDiseases05001.0k1.5k2.0k2.5k2511.3k3173092861611.1k2.3k221148GLP1R (metabolic)EGFR (oncology)

EGFR has 7.2x more clinical trials (2,293 vs 317) reflecting oncology's trial-intensive development model. GLP1R has broader disease associations (286 vs 148) spanning metabolic, cardiovascular, and CNS indications.

EGFR: Top Indicationsall with clinical + human evidence
IndicationScoreEvidence Basis
NSCLC0.77clinical + human
GBM0.70clinical + human
CRC0.70clinical + human
EGFR: Modality Tractabilityall 4 modalities tractable
Small Molecule
TRACTABLE
Antibody
TRACTABLE
PROTAC
TRACTABLE
Other Clinical
TRACTABLE
Molecular PartnerInteraction Score
EGF0.97
STAT30.92
PTPN10.90
PTPN110.86
AP2M10.83
How It Works

Methodology

STEP 1

Synapse builds evidence-scored target dossier

Synapse queries PubMed, ChEMBL, Open Targets, ClinicalTrials.gov, FAERS, STRING, and 10+ additional databases. It extracts and normalizes evidence claims with full source attribution, producing a comprehensive dossier with 251 papers, 1,301 evidence items, and 317 clinical trials for GLP1R.

STEP 2

Cortex runs differential expression

Cortex analyzes your experimental omics data using DESeq2 with appropriate covariates. For the IL-4/IL-13/IL-33 dataset, this identified 4,272 differentially expressed genes across 62 samples in two cell types.

STEP 3

Pathway enrichment identifies biological processes

GSEA enrichment across Hallmark, KEGG, and Reactome gene sets identifies which biological processes are affected. The platform found TNFα/NF-κB signaling as the top IL-33 pathway (NES 2.27) and IL2/STAT5 as the top IL-4 pathway (NES 1.89).

STEP 4

Platform overlays results to find convergence

Synapse disease associations are matched against Cortex pathway and gene-level findings. Convergent signals (where independent evidence sources agree) are flagged as high-confidence. Contradictions are surfaced with concordance scores.

STEP 5

Translational gap analysis

Evidence is mapped across the translational chain (basic research → preclinical → clinical). Gaps at any stage are flagged. For GLP1R, the chain is complete with 580 basic research items, 404 preclinical items, and 317 clinical items.

Who This Is For

Target personas

Target biology lead

Assess whether experimental findings are consistent with the broader evidence base before committing to validation studies.

Translational science head

Identify translational gaps and contradictions that could derail programs, before they become expensive.

Portfolio reviewer

Compare targets by evidence maturity and convergence strength to allocate resources effectively.